When the Dawes Commission began the enrollment they only enrolled those who lived locally. This was part of the deal. Those who lived outside of the Cherokee interest in OK Teretory weren't allowed to enroll. They were denied due to residency requirements.

When the Dawes Commission began the enrollment they only enrolled those who lived locally. This was part of the deal. Those who lived outside of the Cherokee interest in OK Teretory weren't allowed to enroll. They were denied due to residency requirements.

Is this correct or not?

That is not correct. I have the Dawes Rolls and just pulled them out to look. I found right away a family that was enrolled who were living as far away as Ark and CO. So they didn't limit it to location.

And then before I even found that I was remembering the Guion Miller Roll which covered both the Eastern and some of the Western Cherokee's through this roll. Now, who this roll didn't cover were the ones that are called "First Settler's" and those are the ones who relocated to Ark first before moving on the OK. The ones who were covered through the Guion Miller Rolls were the ones who actually went on the "Trail Of Tears" through the removal. And they were enrolling Cherokee's from all over the Country.

At looking at looking at the Dawes Rolls again, I'm going to place two direct quotes here:

"An act of Congress dated March 3, 1893 (27 Stat. 645) provided for a commission to negotiate with the Cherokee, Choctaw, Creek, Chickasaw, and Seminole Nations of Oklahoma to dissolve their Tribal governments and to allot their land to individual citizens."

"Citizens of the Tribes were enrolled under the following categories: By Blood, Marriage, Minors (born during enrollment period), Freedmen (Former Slaves), and Delaware (adopted into the Cherokee Nation)."

Now it was previously mentioned about the Delawares versus the Freedmen earlier--here's the difference and it's stated right in the records--The Delaware were "Adopted" into the Cherokee Nation. There is no listing of the "Freedmen" ever having been "Adopted" into the Cherokee Nation. Hence the difference--In my opinion.

At looking at looking at the Dawes Rolls again, I'm going to place two direct quotes here:

"An act of Congress dated March 3, 1893 (27 Stat. 645) provided for a commission to negotiate with the Cherokee, Choctaw, Creek, Chickasaw, and Seminole Nations of Oklahoma to dissolve their Tribal governments and to allot their land to individual citizens."

"Citizens of the Tribes were enrolled under the following categories: By Blood, Marriage, Minors (born during enrollment period), Freedmen (Former Slaves), and Delaware (adopted into the Cherokee Nation)."

Now it was previously mentioned about the Delawares versus the Freedmen earlier--here's the difference and it's stated right in the records--The Delaware were "Adopted" into the Cherokee Nation. There is no listing of the "Freedmen" ever having been "Adopted" into the Cherokee Nation. Hence the difference--In my opinion.

Yeah that is interesting, but what else is interesting (to me) is that the "Land Lottery" in OK started about 1898 (I believe--I'm going by memory here) and that is when the Dawes Rolls' were actually dated even though they continued, in some cases, to collect information on families up to 1914.

When the Dawes Commission began the enrollment they only enrolled those who lived locally. This was part of the deal. Those who lived outside of the Cherokee interest in OK Teretory weren't allowed to enroll. They were denied due to residency requirements.

Is this correct or not?

The Cherokee Nation had residency requirements for citizenship. I've seen in Dawes testimony where families would submit to the Commission that the National Council re-admitted them as Citizens, thus verifying their status.

I think they used the 1880 and 1896 Cherokee Nation censuses as verification of citizenship.

The Cherokee Nation had residency requirements for citizenship. I've seen in Dawes testimony where families would submit to the Commission that the National Council re-admitted them as Citizens, thus verifying their status.

I think they used the 1880 and 1896 Cherokee Nation censuses as verification of citizenship.

Are you sure about that? I have the rolls right here and it lists where the people lived at the time. Now I do know that on many of the enrollement applications one of the questions was: Have you or your parents ever lived in NDN territory with the NDNs, that's a little different then a requirement of where they were living at the time.
Like I said, there are two families that I have found right on the Rolls who didn't live in OK. And I do know for sure more that I haven't even looked at. So, just my point here, was that final enrollement wasn't totally determined by location as I believe was asked above.

Does Congress have the right to tell the Cherokee Nation to allow Freedmen into their tribal membership or else they will consider terminating the Cherokee Nation - as a federally recognized tribe?

De facto, the answer is a resounding "yes."

(See, that's the whole fallacy of Limited Sovereignty that I have been screaming about for nearly 500 posts: it doesn't exist.)

Beyond the obvious oxymoron of the two words being used together, the entire concepts of Recognition, Blood Quantum, Tribal membership, et al, are based upon the not-so-universal blessing of the Federal Government: if they do not recognize a tribe, they -- legally -- do not exist and/or are owed subsidy for NOTHING.

Let me say this again: Tribal Nations, as legal entities, exist at the will and pleasure of the Federal government. The Cherokee, unwisely, have pricked at the leviathan until there is actual annoyance and they may get swatted.

Doing such was neither wise, strategic or intelligent: unless they truly believe that they can go it alone. If they can, then I am the idiot and they are WAY ahead of the curve (because I do support such a policy, I just do not think we are there, yet).

WhoME..... Ok, I may stand corrected... thanks for quoting that specific language, though it looks like it came from a media/journalistic source (and an op/ed from Ben Nighthorse Campbell at that... maybe TheHill.com? hmmm?). If so, what is the exact language of the bill itself? Inquiring minds want to know from our guy in DC.... Certainly Campbell calls it termination, but what is the actual text of the law, cause that, more than Campbell's opinion, is what matters.

Str8,

This bill is public domain and on public record. Google it.

The Cherokee Nation refers to HB 2824 as a Termination Bill. The author defends her bill by stating it is not.

The Cherokee Nation refers to HB 2824 as a Termination Bill. The author defends her bill by stating it is not.

You tell me? Is it or isn't it?

I suppose from the viewpoint that it will terminate Federal Funding to our tribe it could be construed that lost of that much funding would effectively remove the ablity for the tribe to continue functioning as a government thus terminating the tribe

Its the same analogy: when you chop off the head is it the fact that you bled to death or the actual cutting off the head?? Same result is it not...

Here is the exact wording in HB 2824

SEC. 2. SEVERANCE OF RELATIONS WITH THE CHEROKEE NATION.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The United States hereby severs all relations with the Cherokee Nation, including all financial obligations or otherwise, until such time as the Cherokee Nation is meeting all of its treaty obligations and other federal statutory obligations (including all obliga20
tions of the Treaty of 1866, the Principal Chiefs Act, holding elections for tribal leaders that are in compliance with the Act, and has restored the rights of all Cherokee Freedmen disenfranchised from the Cherokee Nation in the March 3, 2007, Cherokee Nation vote), as determined by a final certification under section 2(d).

If you read further this Bill also covers all 5 "civilized tribes"

(3) OTHER FREEDMAN INDIANS.—Not later
than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue a public report to Congress on the status of freedmen in the Cherokee,Choctaw, Chickasaw, Muscogee (Creek), and Seminole Nations of Oklahoma. The report shall address whether each of those Indian tribes is complying with all treaty obligations and Federal laws with respect to its freedmen members, the level of participation of freedmen in tribal leadership positions,tribal benefits received by the freedmen, and previous or current efforts on the part of those Indian tribes to disenfranchise its freedmen members.
(d) CONGRESSIONAL CERTIFICATION.—After the Secretary has certified to Congress that the Cherokee Nation is in full compliance with all its treaty obligations and Congress approves the Secretary’s certification by a vote taken on a resolution introduced in both chambers of Congress certifying that the Cherokee Nation is in full compliance with its treaty obligations, the final certification of the Cherokee Nation’s treaty compliance shall take effect.
VerDate Aug 31 2005 23:34 Jun 23, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2824.IH H2824 pwalker on PROD1PC71

It also covers the tribe's ability to use Gaming profits to continue on as a tribe

SEC. 3. SUSPENSION OF RIGHT TO CONDUCT GAMING OP
ERATIONS.
3 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Cherokee Nation’s authority
4 to conduct gaming regulated under the Indian Gaming
5 Regulatory Act and to administer any funds from such
6 gaming are suspended until such time that the Cherokee
7 Nation is in compliance with all treaty and other obligations with the United States, as determined by a final certification under section 2(d).

So you tell me if this would effective shut down all operations this would include all of our Schools, Hospitals EVERYTHING
Yep that is right we have or in the process of taking over all Health Services for our Tribal members NO MORE INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE.

Well, Josiah--that's what they did a few years ago to the Seminoles when they had the same vote there.

Here's always been my question here: Why is it only the 5 Civilized Tribes that must take care of and provide for the descendants of the "Freedmen" and not anyone else? Such as the former Plantation owners from the South or the Descendants of Thomas Jefferson as well, it's a known fact that he had children with one of his Slaves and many of them couldn't claim that heritage for so many years. So how and why is it okay for the gov to decide that these 5 Tribes must do it that way--but no one else has to.

Well, Josiah--that's what they did a few years ago to the Seminoles when they had the same vote there.

Here's always been my question here: Why is it only the 5 Civilized Tribes that must take care of and provide for the descendants of the "Freedmen" and not anyone else? Such as the former Plantation owners from the South or the Descendants of Thomas Jefferson as well, it's a known fact that he had children with one of his Slaves and many of them couldn't claim that heritage for so many years. So how and why is it okay for the gov to decide that these 5 Tribes must do it that way--but no one else has to.

Just the way that I look at this situation.

Here is the thing I find fascinating about this whole treaty of 1866
She even quotes it in her Bill, the tribe actually split up because of the war
John Ross who was chief at the time sided with the North and most of the tribe
The other part went to the South
BUT AFTER THE WAR THE WHOLE TRIBE WAS MADE TO PAY FOR THE FACT THAT A PART FOUGHT FOR THE SOUTH!!!

They are still in denial about the slavery issue and in a few years it wont even be taught in History books except for the Ndns had em

I know--they still have a burr up their butts that Ridge was such a good Soldier for the South during the Civil War and that he held his own for so long.LMAO

But that happens, they need to get over it. The Cherokee's were split just like so many other families during that time--half went south and half went north. And if they really want to B**** shoot, Lincoln's own brother-in-law's (Mary Todd's brother's) fought for the South and he was the President at the time.ROFLMAO Get over it.(Not you--lmao) But Lincoln himself hated NDN's and that's some of it--in my opinion--about that then.

Yep, I agree with you there. They are changing history to suit what they want again. And you are right.LOL

Personally I've allways been under the impression that it was each nations individual right to determine its own membership; but it appears that "legally" it really isn't, and that's a damn shame.

After reading over the information that Whome provided it is my opinion that this bill is clearly a termination bill. The question on my mind now is what such legislation means for Indian Country as a whole in the future? Is this the begginig of the end? Is this going to be the route (un-recognize every nation who doesn't follow their rediculous stipulations) the US finally takes to rid itself of its Indian problem once and for all?

From where I'm sitting, this isn't just a Cherokee problem, its a First Nations problem for all who exist within United States borders! What's next? Is congress going to make every tribe extend services to every non-native that marries a tribal member and terminate them if they don't? Are they then going to make every nation extend services to this non-natives family as well or terminate the nation if they don't? Or is congress going to gradually reduce tribal governments to mere localized agencies that service everyone near them (regardless of enrollment) and ultimately do away with anything actually reminiscent of a sovereign entity all together?

The precedent that such a bill would make scares the bejesus out of me, because in time people "WILL" push it farther and farther until there is nothing left!

In my opinion the Cherokee should be allowed to remove the Freedmen, if some of them actually have biological Cherokee lineage then that is a seperate matter in which each individual who actually does (which for the most part is going to be a small minority) should clear up on their own by presenting evidence to the cherokee enrollment office to "PROVE IT"!

The Cherokee of Oklahoma have thousands on their rolls with African blood, to say it's racist to remove those with no Indian blood at all is rediculouse. If there was for some reason or another some sort of freed white (no Indian blood at all) indentured class of people that were "forced" onto their rolls, I'm sure they'd ultimately be pushing to remove them as well!

Well I heard of one case of a white man (Joseph Hardin Bennett) who paid for Cherokee citizenship. When his Cherokee wife died he didn't want to lose his citizenship so he paid for one. He was given a 4/4 blood quantum in addition to his citizenship. When he remarried, his second wife was white, yet since he was given a blood quantum all his descendants from the second marriage have blood degrees and have citizenship even though they have no Cherokee blood. They are not being disenrolled. There are many others whites who paid for membership in the nation as well and were given blood quantums.

Well I heard of one case of a white man (forget his name) who paid for Cherokee citizenship because he was married to a Cherokee woman. He was given a 4/4 blood quantum in addition to his citizenship. When he remarried, his second wife was white, yet since he was given a blood quantum all his descendents from the second marriage have blood degrees and have citizenship even though they have no Cherokee blood. They are not being disenrolled. There are many others whites who paid for membership in the nation as well and were given blood quantums.

Again, are you sure about that? If you can come up with a name we CAN prove this. On the Dawes Family Census cards they listed their ancestors and many of those traced back to the 1851 Drennen Rolls. Now, what there was that did happen back then and it did with all 5 Civilized Tribes was that if a Non-Native person was married to a Native person and the non-native wanted an allotment (piece of the land) they had to pay a fee to the Commission to obtain that allotment and that did happen, again, however they were NOT listed on the Census Cards with a blood quantium--but they were listed as "parent" with no quantium listed at all.

From where I'm sitting, this isn't just a Cherokee problem, its a First Nations problem for all who exist within United States borders! !

lumbee,

You're right. Litigation in the courts always refer to earlier precedents that have already been decided.

Unfortunately the United States Constitution sets up Congress to deal with Indian tribes.

"Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, known as the Commerce Clause, states that Congress has the exclusive authority to manage commerce between the states, with foreign nations, and Indian tribes."

In my opinion the final outcome, if it becomes law, will set a precedent for all tribes in the reality of Congress severing tribal relations with the United States.

There is no Joseph Hardin Bennett listed on this Roll. This comes from the Dawes Rolls Plus written by Bob Blankenship of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians who also wrote Cherokee Roots Vol. 1, Cherokee Roots Vol 2, The Guion Miller Rolls and the Baker Rolls.

Now, I am going to go check for the Family Census cards and see if it's there, but so far--I'm not finding his name in these records anywhere.